Deputy President Jacob Zuma said in Parliament on Wednesday that he does not, in any way, consider the Schabir Shaik corruption and fraud trial to be a black spot on the presidency.

Zuma was on Wednesday let off the hook from answering questions regarding alleged meetings between himself and a French arms businessman linked to the Shaik trial, after National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete ruled that a proposed question from the Democratic Alliance was out of order.

The DA on Wednesday described Mbete's decision as "wrong in the law and out of touch with the relevance of the law and the Constitution''. Shouts of "cover-up'' and "skande'' (scandal) could be heard from opposition benches on Wednesday after Mbete defended her reasons for her ruling.

Earlier this week, Mbete ruled that the question, from DA member of Parliament Raenette Taljaard, concerning a meeting between Zuma and French businessman Alain Thetard, is out of order because it does not comply with the sub judice rule.

The question was one of four to be put to Zuma during parliamentary question time on Wednesday. Taljaard was set to ask Zuma whether he would reconsider his answer to a question she asked him in March last year regarding meetings with Thetard. She was also poised to ask him when such meetings were held and what was discussed.

Taljaard has said that when she asked Zuma in 2003 whether he had met with Thetard, Zuma had not given a "categorical denial''. She said this reply had been a source of concern to her.

Shortly before Zuma was due to answer questions, DA chief whip Douglas Gibson raised a point of order on Mbete's decision, saying the questions cannot fall shy of the sub judice rule as Zuma is neither an accused nor a witness in the Shaik trial.

Responding, Mbete said the issue was "very carefully considered'' by her office. She said it was based on a self-imposed rule of the assembly, "in order for the house to work with the courts with the necessary respect".

Mbete added that Taljaard's question specifically mentioned evidence arising at the trial. "Although the deputy president is not on trial, the substance is before the court and therefore I have ruled it out of order,'' Mbete said, to loud heckling from the opposition benches.

Following this response, Mbete allowed a question to Zuma from the United Christian Democratic Party on the achievements of the moral regeneration movement.

Asked, during supplementary questions, whether he considers the Shaik trial to be a "black spot'' on the presidency, Zuma said: "Not at all. I do not look at it that way, not at all.''

Taljaard was also set to ask Zuma whether "in light of the KPMG report which is before the Shabir Shaik court case", he will reconsider his statement to Parliament's ethics committee last year that the payments he obtained through Shaik were "interest-bearing loans".

The ethics committee ruled that Zuma was not obliged to disclose the payments in the register of members' interests as they were interest-bearing loans.

The KPMG report, which has been closely looked at during Shaik's trial in Durban, includes an examination of these payments.

In a letter to Taljaard, which was copied to Zuma, Mbete said the issues raised in the question are the subject of a judicial process and therefore out of order. Mbete said that in terms of the rules of the National Assembly "no member shall refer to any matter on which a decision is pending".

Addressing the media shortly before the National Assembly sat on Wednesday, Taljaard said that, in the light of repeated calls from Zuma that he has not had an opportunity to state his side of events, the question offered a "golden opportunity" to set the record straight.

"But now, when an opportunity is given to rebut the allegations, it is not taken," Taljaard said.

Gibson said the DA disagrees wholeheartedly with Mbete's decision.

"There is no judicial decision pending about the deputy president's reply to question 110 of 13 March, 2003. There is also no judicial decision pending concerning the Parliamentary Ethics Committee hearing in 2003,'' Gibson said.

Asked on Wednesday whether Zuma supports the withdrawal of the question, Zuma's spokeswoman Lakela Kaunda said Zuma takes the same view as Mbete.

"His view is that the matter is before the court. The deputy president would not like to run an alternative court while the court process is under way,'' Kaunda said.

With acknowledgements to Sue Segar and The Natal Witness.